Near Miss Coolangatta.

I saw the thread was closed, but actually want to defend the newspapers on how close this really was. A family member saw it and initially thought they were flying formation, before common sense clicked in and they realised something had gone really wrong.

According to ASA Webtrack, (12 Oct 9:16am) WebTrak , they aircraft were less than 100ft apart vertically and not much horizontally.

Everyone keeps dismissing this as "fear-mongering"... but this was actually a bloody close call in the scheme of things.

Perhaps the Captain elected to keep the C525 in sight until he had the situation under control and had a clear spatial picture before committing the RH turn, rather than blindly losing sight without knowing.

I bet the formation guru's will give us a good education in not losing sight and what to do and not do if you do.

I bet the formation guru's will give us a good education in not losing sight and what to do and not do if you do.

Done a bit in my time, 100-650kts. You either push to stay in sight, pull the power off to drop back fast if you lose sight, or turn away promptly (with a pull up to assist) to get away from the person you've lost. I'll leave it to you to work out which one would work in this case!

Was azimuth lost for there to be a breakdown visually? I am not familiar with Goldcoast aerodrome but looking at ERSA and webtrak I'd say the controller likely never lost azimuth. Sure, it got close but no doubt everyone knew about each other.

The fact the aircraft went around meant there more than likely wasn't a runway separation incident (though more than likely there would have been had Virgin landed).

If it's done visually, you don't need vertical.

I think I'd rather listen to the tapes and see the radar tapes with GS etc before I hang anyone over this one.

Awol57 The way I see it is that separation must be established and maintained as the transition is made from one separation standard to another. As runway separation, IMHO, never existed, it is difficult to argue that any other standard existed until the two tracks diverged at about 9:16:28 The event occurs from about 9:15:59 which is the first time both aircraft appear on the WebTrack display, to 9:16:28 which is when track divergence occurs. The aerodrome elevation is 21' AMSL. WebTrack altitudes may well be incorrect, but relatively to both aircraft, should be accurate enough. At 9:15:59 the C25A is possibly airborne at 98' with VOZ 511 passed the runway threshold at 354' and 400-500m behind. This is not runway separation, the first standard that needs to be applied. From 9:15:59 to 9:16:17 I believe there may possibly be visual azimuth separation from the Tower, but it won't last long. The C25A is below VOZ511 by 60-100', and 300-400m ahead. Not being a B738 pilot, I don't know if an aircraft is visible from the cockpit in this position i.e. below and between 1100-1130 o'clock. The C25A pilot has no way of seeing or knowing the position of the other aircraft. So relying on pilot participation during this fairly critical phase, is problematic. From 9:16:17 to 9:16:28 visual azimuth separation from the Tower is not sustainable. VOZ511 is still above the C25A, and still within 400m and with very little angular distance between them from the Tower. In my experience, this would not be enough to claim "visual separation". (The favourite catch call) There is no visual separation, vertical separation, radar separation or any other type of separation as I see it. Also, IMHO and in hindsight, I think it is safer for the B738 to land because it is a close situation that won't get any closer. With both aircraft in the air, it's a close situation that gets closer until they end up diverging.

I agree with you 100% about letting the second one land. In my experience it's better (and safer) to cop the runway sep breakdown than have 2 in the air on upwind.

I am am not familiar enough with goldcoast to speculate any more. I understand it's in as a LOSA so I assume there was visual sep but it wasn't what you might call "ideal" conditions, or that it wasn't assigned to the pilot.

Either way, it's one of those situations you never let happen again (or at least try to avoid at all costs )